Complaint, P 6(A). See also id., P 5(A) (alleging discriminatory conduct with regard to race). In his affidavit Edwards states that at the meeting "[David Levy] questioned me as to why I taught and discussed race, class and sex discrimination [in my classes.]" Edwards Aff'd at 4. "It is clear they wanted a white man discussing these subjects, someone who would not leave impressions with the students." Id. at 6. There was also little doubt in Edwards' mind that he had been fired at this meeting: "It was made very clear to me at the December 20th meeting that I was not welcome at Interboro." Id. at 7.
*fn3"
In his affidavit, Edwards concludes that "I was discharged because I, as a black male, tried to teach other minority students about discrimination." Edwards Aff'd at 7. Edwards, however, does not allege sexual discrimination in his Complaint.

Defendant Interboro maintains that whether Edwards was fired in December of 1991 is irrelevant because it is undisputed that Edwards returned to work on January 14, 1992. Levy Aff'd, P 7(k). In his second Charge of Discrimination, dated February 11, 1992, Edwards concedes that "subsequent to the filing of the [first Charge of Discrimination], I was asked to return to my teaching duties by the Respondent's attorneys in a letter dated January 13, 19992 [sic]. I returned to work . . . ." Levy Aff'd, Ex. A.
*fn4"

In the Complaint, Edwards alleges that he was terminated in February of 1992 in retaliation for filing his first Charge of Discrimination on or about January 2, 1992.
*fn6"
In response to defendant's assertion that he was terminated for insubordination, he states in his affidavit that he lacked the financial resources to obtain an official transcript and that defendant was aware of this limitation; hence, its request for the transcript was an excuse upon which it could base its discriminatory firing:

The question of my academic credentials and my degree is an interesting and important one. When hired by Interboro, I explained that because of financial problems, I could not obtain an official transcript. There seemed to be no problem. I was able to provide an unofficial transcript (Exhibit "B"). As a basis for my discharge (the second time), Interboro claimed that I had not provided an official copy of my transcript. This seems to have been just an excuse. They knew from the beginning that I couldn't provide that document. They also had other teachers who had not provided this information.

Seven months after his termination Edwards commenced this civil action against Interboro. In its answer, Interboro denied plaintiff's allegations; asserted two affirmative defenses; and asserted a counterclaim for defamation stemming from a letter which Edwards sent to the Bureau of Proprietary Vocational Schools in New York City,
*fn7"
and a counterclaim for libel stemming from a letter which Edwards sent to the United States Department of Education.
*fn8"
(Interboro also claims that Edwards has not adequately responded to its discovery requests. Levy Aff'd, Ex. C.)

In deciding a summary judgment motion, the court need not resolve disputed issues of fact, but need only determine whether there is any genuine issue to be tried. Eastman Mach. Co. v. United States, 841 F.2d 469, 473 (2d Cir. 1988). A genuine factual issue exists if there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmovant such that a jury could return a verdict in its favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202, 106 S. Ct. 2505 (1986). The nonmoving party, therefore, must come forward with facts, and not doubts as to the veracity of the moving party's allegations: "Rule 56(e) . . . requires the nonmoving party to go beyond the pleadings and by her own affidavits, or by the 'depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,' designate 'specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324. One of the purpose's of summary judgment, therefore, "is to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims or defenses." Id. at 323-24.

In the context of an employment discrimination action, the Second Circuit has stated that "to allow a party to defeat a motion for summary judgment by offering purely conclusory allegations of discrimination, absent any concrete particulars, would necessitate a trial in all Title VII cases." Meiri v. Dacon, 759 F.2d 989, 998 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 829, 88 L. Ed. 2d 74, 106 S. Ct. 91 (1985).
*fn9"
See also Powers v. Dole, 782 F.2d 689, 694 (7th Cir. 1986) ("Even when such issues of motive or intent are at stake, summary judgment is proper 'where the plaintiff presents no indications of motive and intent supportive of his position.'").

II. The Alleged First Termination Based on Race

Edwards alleges in his Complaint that he was terminated in December of 1991 in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2, which provides in relevant part as follows:

(a) it shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges or employment, because of such individual's race . . . .

As the Supreme Court observed in Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 429-30, 28 L. Ed. 2d 158, 91 S. Ct. 849 (1971), "the objective of Congress in the enactment of Title VII . . . was to achieve equality of employment opportunities and remove barriers that have operated in the past to favor an identifiable group of white employees over other employees." The guidelines for analyzing a case for discrimination in employment practices were outlined in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668, 93 S. Ct. 1817 (1973), and Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 67 L. Ed. 2d 207, 101 S. Ct. 1089 (1981):

Burdine, 450 U.S. at 252-53. However, even if a trier of fact rejects the defendant's submission that its reasons were justified, the burden of proving that the motivation for the plaintiff's termination was improper remains with the plaintiff. St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, U.S. , 125 L. Ed. 2d 407, 113 S. Ct. 2742, 2749 (1993) ("The Court of Appeals' holding that rejection of the defendant's proffered reasons compels judgment for the plaintiff . . . ignores our repeated admonition that the Title VII plaintiff at all times bears the 'ultimate burden of persuasion.'") (emphasis in original).

1. Edwards' Prima Facie Case.

The elements necessary to satisfy plaintiff's initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of discriminatory discharge are as follows: (1) the plaintiff belongs to a protected class; (2) the employee's job performance was satisfactory; (3) the employee was discharged; and (4) after the discharge "the position remained open and the employer continued to seek applicants from persons of complainant's qualifications." Meiri v. Dacon, 759 F.2d 989, 995 (2d Cir. 1985) (quoting McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802). The nature of a plaintiff's burden of proof at the prima facie stage is de minimis. Meiri, 759 F.2d at 996 n.10.

It is undisputed that Edwards is a member of a racial minority (he is black). Edwards has alleged that his job performance was satisfactory. Edwards Aff'd at 2 ("During my first year, the chairman of my department visited my classes on at least one occasion and gave me an outstanding review."); id. at 3 (plaintiff is hired by Kalisch as a recruiter). An assertion by plaintiff that his work was satisfactory can be sufficient. Thermidor v. Beth Israel Medical Ctr., 683 F. Supp. 403, 409 (S.D.N.Y. 1988). However, Interboro asserts that even if Edwards was fired in December of 1991, Edwards cannot establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination because he returned to work in January of 1992; that is, after the "discharge" the position did not remain open and Interboro did not continue to seek applicants (as evidenced by the fact that Edwards returned to work). Defendant's 3(g) Statement, P 7(k) ("Edwards returned to teach classes at Interboro as scheduled on January 14, 1992[.]"). As pointed out above, Edwards has conceded that he returned to work following the December 1991 meeting: "Subsequent to the filing of the [first Charge of Discrimination], I was asked to return to my teaching duties by the Respondent's attorneys in a letter dated January 13, 19992 [sic]. I returned to work . . . ." Levy Aff'd Ex. A.
*fn10"
See also Plaintiff's Statement Under Rule 3(g), P (k) ("Plaintiff admits that he returned to teach classes at Interboro as scheduled on January 14, 1992."); Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law at 2 ("Plaintiff . . . concluded that he was being rehired for the spring 1991 [sic] semester.").

Plaintiff also makes a claim for retaliatory discharge in violation of Section 2000e-3(a) of Title 42 of the United States Code. This statute provides in relevant part that,

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees or applicants for employment . . . because he has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter, or because he has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this subchapter.

"The objective of this section is obviously to forbid an employer from retaliating against an employee because of the latter's opposition to an unlawful employment practice." Manoharan v. Columbia Univ. College of Physicians & Surgeons, 842 F.2d 590, 593 (2d Cir. 1988).

A. The Prima Facie Case

"A plaintiff in a [Title VII] retaliation claim must demonstrate, for the purposes of a prima facie case, that: (1) she was engaged in an activity Protected under Title VII; (2) the employer was aware of plaintiff's participation in the protected activity; (3) the employer took adverse action against plaintiff based upon her activity; and (4) a causal connection existed between the plaintiff's protected activity and the adverse action taken by the employer." Cosgrove v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 9 F.3d 1033, slip. op. 6895, 6905 (2d Cir. 1993). See also Kotcher v. Rosa and Sullivan Appliance Center, Inc., 957 F.2d 59, 64 (2d Cir. 1992) ("[A] plaintiff must show participation in a protected activity known to the defendant, an employment action disadvantaging the person engaged in the protected activity, and a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action."). There are two methods of establishing a causal connection: indirectly by "showing that the protected activity was followed by discriminatory treatment . . . or directly through evidence of retaliatory animus." Sumner v. U.S. Postal Serv., 899 F.2d 203, 209 (2d Cir. 1990).

In this case, it is undisputed that plaintiff has participated in a protected activity -- i.e., the filing of his complaint with the EEOC on or about January 2, 1992. "The protected activity usually takes the form of filing a formal complaint with an agency or filing a law suit." Kotcher, 957 F.2d at 65. The defendant knew of the filing of the complaint on January 13, 1992, a little less than one month prior to plaintiff's termination. Kalisch Aff'd, P 12 ("On January 13, 1992 . . . I received notice from the EEOC [that] Edwards had filed a complaint on or about January 3, 1993 [sic]. . . ."). It is also undisputed that Edwards suffered from an employment action disadvantaging him (he was fired). What is vehemently disputed, however, is the causal connection between plaintiff's filing of charges in January and his termination in February. Plaintiff alleges that he was terminated in retaliation whereas defendant alleges that he was terminated for insubordination.

Recognition is accorded to the cases which regard the close temporal relationship between the protected activity and the employment action as a factor relevant to causality.
*fn12"
That the factor of temporal proximity alone is not determinative is recognized in Hollander v. American Cyanamid Co., 895 F.2d 80 (2d Cir. 1990), in which the time intervening between the alleged discrimination and the protected activity was only three months. The court there affirmed the granting of summary judgment to the defendant finding that the plaintiff had "not offered any evidence which would fulfill the final requirement of a causal nexus between his filing of the agency complaint, on the one hand, and [the adverse employment action], on the other." Id. at 85. Therefore, the fact that Edwards' termination occurred less than one month after Interboro learned of his charge to the EEOC does not, in and of itself, establish a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge.

a. Plaintiff's Submissions

Plaintiff's 3(g) statement and affidavit do not contain any "facts" regarding the causal connection between the filing of the EEOC charges and Edwards' termination. They both contain many assertions that defendant is wrong and that, in fact, plaintiff was fired in retaliation. And based upon the denial of defendant's reasons for firing him, plaintiff concludes that there is a genuine issue of fact (i.e., the reason for his termination) which warrants denying the motion.

For example, plaintiff states that defendant's demand that he provide an official transcript is "just an excuse" because "they knew from the beginning that I couldn't provide that document." Edwards Aff'd at 7. He also implies that the requested-for syllabi was designed to mask defendant's discriminatory intent: "It is clear that these were just excuses so that they could get rid of me." Id. In his 3(g) statement, plaintiff also denies that he failed to supply course outlines and that he was asked to submit a copy of his official transcript. Plaintiff's Statement Under Rule 3(g), PP (l), (m) at 4. These bare denials are not facts upon which a jury could conclude that a causal connection existed between the EEOC filing and the termination. As stated above, conclusory denials do not preclude granting a summary judgment motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) ("an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of [its] pleading, but [its] response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.")

At [the point that defendant has articulated a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for plaintiff's termination], the plaintiff must have the opportunity to demonstrate that the employer's proffered reason was not the "true reason" for the employment decision. This may be done either by persuading the trier of fact that a discriminatory reason more likely than not motivated the employer, or by persuading the trier of fact that the employer's proffered explanation is unworthy of belief.

Because this is a motion for summary judgment, the question is whether plaintiff has produced any evidence upon which a reasonable jury could determine that a "discriminatory reason more likely than not motivated [Interboro]" in terminating Edwards' employment following the filing of the EEOC charges; or that "[Interboro's] proffered explanation [in terminating Edwards] is unworthy of belief." As discussed above, the only "facts" put forward by plaintiff in support of these propositions is his denial that he failed to supply course outlines or was asked to submit a copy of his official transcript. Plaintiff's Statement Under Rule 3(g), PP (l), (m). See also Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law at 4 ("Plaintiff, by Affidavit, has submitted facts sufficient to rebut defendant's claim that dismissal was based on legitimate business reasons (failure to provide requested documentation of academic credentials and failure to file course outlines and syllabi)."). However, "plaintiff's conclusory allegations of discrimination are insufficient to withstand the defendant['s] . . . cross-motion for summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)." Sewell v. New York City Transit Authority, 809 F. Supp. 208, 219 (E.D.N.Y. 1992). See also Thermidor v. Beth Israel Medical Ctr., 683 F. Supp. 403, 412 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) (pretext is not established when "plaintiff merely offers conclusory statements that his performance must have been satisfactory because he was never informed of his employer's dissatisfaction until the time of his discharge.").

Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law at 5-6. However, as demonstrated above, plaintiff has failed to come forward with any evidence upon which a reasonable jury could conclude that Interboro's termination of his employment was pretextual.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., was an enactment then long overdue and noble in its objectives. It unquestionably has served to deter, if not entirely eradicate, the pernicious practice of discrimination in employment decisions. It has, however, also unquestionably served to embolden disgruntled employees, who have been legitimately discharged because they were incompetent, insubordinate, or dishonest, to file suits alleging that they have been the victim of discrimination. The motives prompting those baseless filings may be inferred to be harassment or intimidation with a view towards being rehired. Whatever the motives, the frequency with which such cases are filed unduly burdens the federal courts and subjects innocent employers to incredible expense which they cannot recoup if successful notwithstanding 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k). See Christiansburg Garment Co. v. E.E.O.C., 434 U.S. 412, 54 L. Ed. 2d 648, 98 S. Ct. 694 (1978) (attorneys' fees for successful Title VII defendants are not available unless defendant can demonstrate that the action was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless). A reexamination of Christiansburg in the revealing light of experience would be useful.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: Brooklyn, New York

January 7, 1994

I. Leo Glasser, U.S. D. J.

Our website includes the main text of the court's opinion but does not include the
docket number, case citation or footnotes. Upon purchase, docket numbers and/or
citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding.
Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.